Ford Motor Company v. Darling's
2014 ME 7
| Me. | 2014Background
- The Dealers Act regulates the Ford–Darling’s franchise relationship and creates Board and court remedies for violations.
- Darling’s, a Ford dealer in Bangor, operated under a 1989 Ford SSA allowing Ford to issue guides, standards, and price terms.
- Ford’s Blue Oval Certified (BOC) incentive program paid dealers a cash bonus; termination was announced to end by March 31, 2005.
- The Board found Ford violated 10 M.R.S. § 1174(3)(B) by terminating the BOC without 90 days’ certified-mail notice, awarding damages and penalties.
- Ford challenged whether the BOC program was within the franchise and whether notice was properly given; Darling’s/MADA cross-appealed on damages and penalties.
- After a jury trial on the issue of franchise scope, the court upheld the Board’s factual findings; the Superior Court later vacated damages findings and remanded for damages and confirmed one civil penalty.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the BOC program was part of the franchise | Darling's contends BOC within franchise | Ford argues BOC not part of franchise | BOC is within the franchise. |
| Whether Ford’s termination required 90 days’ notice by certified mail | Fortified by 1174(3)(B) notice requirement | Actual notice sufficed | Strict compliance with certified-mail notice required; Ford violated. |
| Whether 1189-B(2) permits de novo jury fact-finding on Board findings | Right to jury trial preserved; de novo review allowed | Section 1189-B(2) requires presumption of Board findings | Section 1189-B(2) prescribes a presumption but does not abolish jury rights; jury review permissible. |
| Whether the Board could award damages under the Dealers Act | Damages were proper under §1173 | Board lacks authority to award damages | Board lacks jurisdiction to award damages; damages vacated and remanded to the Superior Court. |
| Whether the Board properly awarded only one civil penalty | Multiple penalties for each violation | Each modification counts as a single violation | One civil penalty properly applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Irish v. Gimbel, 1997 ME 50 (Me. 1997) (jury trial right and presumptions; burden-shifting considerations)
- Givertz v. Maine Medical Center, 459 A.2d 548 (Me. 1983) (strict notice requirements; directory vs mandatory distinctions)
- Seider v. Bd. of Exam’rs of Psychologists, 1998 ME 78 (Me. 1998) (notice requirements as written; emphasis on written notice)
- Smith v. Hawthorne, 2006 ME 19 (Me. 2006) (jury rights and evidentiary burdens in review of agency findings)
- Frame v. Millinocket Reg’l Hosp., 2013 ME 104 (Me. 2013) (statutory notice and amendment considerations; rigorous interpretation)
- Dyer v. Sec’y of State, 2013 ME 61 (Me. 2013) (intermediate appellate de novo review standard governing agency decisions)
- Clark v. State Emps. Appeals Bd., 363 A.2d 735 (Me. 1976) (agency jurisdiction and authority limits)
- Conners’ Case, 121 Me. 37 (Me. 1921) (early articulation of agency limits and judicial review)